Wednesday, May 16, 2012

4297.txt

Dave,
Rather than go through the doc file, I'll make a few points directly by email.
1. I'll reckon you'll have to go over the top to get Nature to send this out for review.
One way of doing this would be to add in some quick analyses of the
residual global mean series. for recent years. Only a few sentences.
Basically to show that years like 2005 and others in the period 2002-2007 are
after extraction warmer than 1998. Maybe also over 1997/8 to 2007 show
the trend. I know this is somewhat silly, but there is a lot of rubbish on
web sites about global warming stopping. Maybe just rank the top ten
years in the residual series. This might give it more appeal, but not detract
from the main 1945 message.
2. The variability increase as you move back in time is mostly sampling
and inevitable. Probably needs saying - could a foot/endnote. I don't
think this would be any different if you'd used HadCRUT3v or CRUTEM3v,
but I'd like to believe it would be!!
3. You mention regressions for ENSO and COWL. Can you give these
regression coefficients? Or are they sort of pre-determined from theory?
I read this late last night and couldn't quite follow.
Some less important points.
1. With COWL, you could essentially smooth the series and get much the
same result i.e. if you extracted just COWL then smoothed and compared
with raw smoothed they would look much the same.
2. The companion paper on volcanoes ought to try and set up a measure for
the drops - so it is all repeatable. I reckon there are one or two smaller NH
volcanoes you might pick up.
3. With Fig4 you probably also need to show a plot of the overall SST count
per year. % US/UK is OK, but this hides much reduced numbers in the 1940s.
Perhaps you could show a plot of %US, %UK and %others in three colours
in a cumulative way - soo all adds to 100%.
4. The bucket/engine room argument is the wrong way round. The change
was to UK ships in Aug 45.
5. Could also add that the UK/US are digitizing more WW2 UK (RN) ships. I take
it you're aware of the fate of the US WW2 navy ships. Scott Woodruff sent me
the attached - he blacked out the name of who signed this!
6. We are the Climatic Research Unit and you could give our web site
where all these series are.
7. T subscript E isn't defined. It is the whole tropics from surface to TOA
to get the 255K. It's not defined as I can see why it is E. E for equator?
8. I presume the regressions are also based on 1950-2006 just like
the correlations in the Table. Also these are monthly or appear to be from the
plots. Are they similar for annual data?
9. With the ENSO series in the middle of Fig1. You could show how this
compares with a suitably smoothed SOI. It looks as though it will agree
well.
I'm attaching an article where I sort of did this with regression against the SOI.
10. Does COWL look like a high-freq NAM? COWL seems to lose
variability before 1880.
Cheers
Phil
At 03:05 14/01/2008, you wrote:

Phil,
You are more than welcome to show any slides... hopefully the work
will be well into the review process by then... in fact, I'd be happy
to grind out similar analyses for a longer paleo record for you, if
you like.
As for the papers: as I mentioned I've shown the step in 45 work to a
number of folks closely involved in the last IPCC, and all were
adamant we should submit that particular result to Nature. So I
figured I'd give that venue a shot, saving the volcano results for a
slightly longer J Climate paper.
Anyway, I've attached a first draft of the 'step in 45' paper
(figures as pdf; text as pdf and doc). I figured I'd run the text by
folks individually once before I send a draft to the group. If all
goes well I hope to try and submit something in the next couple weeks...
Please feel free to offer any comments that come to mind, both
general and specific.
Thanks again for collaborating with me on this... it's fun....
-Dave
￼￼￼
On Jan 12, 2008, at 12:08 AM, Phil Jones wrote:

Dave,
Sounds fine. Will read through drafts when they come.
A question. I'm planning to go to a meeting Henry Diaz is
organising in
Tahiti in early April. It's sort of Henry's swansong, so keen to
go. It's
also the only chance I'll get to go there !!
I have to write an abstract - it's about paleo and ENSO. Is it OK
to use a couple of the plots on ENSO extraction - from the global T
records?
Cheers
Phil
At 02:32 11/01/2008, you wrote:

Hi Phil,
A quick update:
After mulling it over, I've decided to see if the 'step in 45' and
volcanic results will have more impact if split into two papers.
My feeling was that the 'step in 45' was getting lost in the
volcanic results.
The 'step in 45' paper will be relatively short and punchy; the
volcano paper will be a bit longer. I've nearly got a first draft
of both papers done. I expect to be able to send you a full first
draft of the 'step in 45' paper sometime next week. I expect to
have a full draft of the volcano paper ready shortly after
submitting the 'step in 45' paper.
Thanks again for collaborating with me on the papers...
-Dave
On Dec 14, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Phil Jones wrote:

John,
How the volcanoes stuff is done is in this paper.
Jones, P.D., Moberg, A., Osborn, T.J. and Briffa, K.R., 2003:
Surface climate responses to explosive volcanic eruptions seen in
long European temperature records and mid-to-high latitude tree- ring density around the
Northern Hemisphere, In (A. Robock and C.
Oppenheimer, Eds.) Volcanism and the Earth�s Atmosphere.
American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C. 239-254.
Someone in the HC may have a copy or the library does. I do, but
when we got the pdfs from
AGU they were enormous (and still are) so can't email.
This shows the individual eruptions for the 'raw' data rezeroed
to the 5 year average
of the period before the eruption.
Dave is doing this for 10 years before, then using the
residuals, then taking the trend out.
I'm surprised it makes such a difference - especially with the
trend approach. The
residuals look fine.
Dave has to look at the individual eruptions. There is quite a
lot of inter-eruption
variability.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:57 13/12/2007, John Kennedy wrote:

Dear Dave and Phil,
In answer to Phil's question concerning other jumps in the mix,
I think
this is the only jump that can be identified based on the country
metadata, where we can also be fairly sure there was a step
change in
the measurement method. The drop in US obs in the 1960s occurs
when many
more countries are contributing to the mix and so we're still
not sure
how this change maps onto measurement method, which is what really
causes the biases.
I had some difficulty understanding how Figure 3 was created -
is the
diagram just a straight average of the anomalies before and
after the
January of each volcano? Or has there been some zeroing?
I'd be interested in seeing the individual volcanoes that go
into the
composite. Dave, if you have no objections to sending me the raw
and
residual time series, I can experiment with these things myself.
As for the journal, I agree with Phil. David Parker also
suggested BAMS,
based on its having a wider readership, but JGR or J Clim sound
fine to
me.
Best regards,
John
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:31 +1100, David Thompson wrote:
> Dear Phil and John,
>
>
> Please find attached some draft text for the results section
of the
> paper.
>
>
> At this stage, I want to make sure everyone is comfortable
with the
> main results section. I will send the other sections in a future
> email.
>
>
> Hopefully the text is straightforward to follow even though
you don't
> have a copy of the analysis details (and the figure captions
are still
> under construction). Please don't worry about editing - I'm
mainly
> interested in getting your general impressions.
>
>
> (Phil: I've already iterated with John on the 'dip in 45'
text; but
> I'm curious to know what you think.)
>
>
> One general question: I am planning on submitting the paper to J
> Climate. Does this seem appropriate to both of you? I don't
want the
> 'dip in 45' text to be buried in a long paper, so I've been
toying
> with other venues... if you have any thoughts on the best
journal,
> please let me know. It will impact how the final writing evolves.
>
>
> I will be on travel next week, then the holidays will be upon
us. So
> no rush. I'll be back working on the paper shortly after the
New Year.
> And my hope is to submit the paper in January.
>
>
> Thanks again ...
> Dave
>
--
John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB
Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
E-mail: john.kennedyatXYZxyzoffice.gov.uk [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [2]http://www.hadobs.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. J. Thompson
[4]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet Dept of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
USA
Phone: 970-491-3338
Fax: 970-491-8449
Phil,
You are more than welcome to show any slides... hopefully the work will be well into the
review process by then... in fact, I'd be happy to grind out similar analyses for a
longer paleo record for you, if you like.
As for the papers: as I mentioned I've shown the step in 45 work to a number of folks
closely involved in the last IPCC, and all were adamant we should submit that particular
result to Nature. So I figured I'd give that venue a shot, saving the volcano results
for a slightly longer J Climate paper.
Anyway, I've attached a first draft of the 'step in 45' paper (figures as pdf; text as
pdf and doc). I figured I'd run the text by folks individually once before I send a
draft to the group. If all goes well I hope to try and submit something in the next
couple weeks...
Please feel free to offer any comments that come to mind, both general and specific.
Thanks again for collaborating with me on this... it's fun....
-Dave
On Jan 12, 2008, at 12:08 AM, Phil Jones wrote:

Dave,
Sounds fine. Will read through drafts when they come.
A question. I'm planning to go to a meeting Henry Diaz is organising in
Tahiti in early April. It's sort of Henry's swansong, so keen to go. It's
also the only chance I'll get to go there !!
I have to write an abstract - it's about paleo and ENSO. Is it OK
to use a couple of the plots on ENSO extraction - from the global T
records?
Cheers
Phil
At 02:32 11/01/2008, you wrote:

Hi Phil,
A quick update:
After mulling it over, I've decided to see if the 'step in 45' and volcanic results will
have more impact if split into two papers. My feeling was that the 'step in 45' was
getting lost in the volcanic results.
The 'step in 45' paper will be relatively short and punchy; the volcano paper will be a
bit longer. I've nearly got a first draft of both papers done. I expect to be able to
send you a full first draft of the 'step in 45' paper sometime next week. I expect to
have a full draft of the volcano paper ready shortly after submitting the 'step in 45'
paper.
Thanks again for collaborating with me on the papers...
-Dave
On Dec 14, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Phil Jones wrote:

John,
How the volcanoes stuff is done is in this paper.
Jones, P.D., Moberg, A., Osborn, T.J. and Briffa, K.R., 2003: Surface climate responses
to explosive volcanic eruptions seen in long European temperature records and
mid-to-high latitude tree-ring density around the Northern Hemisphere, In (A. Robock and
C. Oppenheimer, Eds.) Volcanism and the Earths Atmosphere. American Geophysical Union,
Washington D.C. 239-254.
Someone in the HC may have a copy or the library does. I do, but when we got the pdfs
from
AGU they were enormous (and still are) so can't email.
This shows the individual eruptions for the 'raw' data rezeroed to the 5 year average
of the period before the eruption.
Dave is doing this for 10 years before, then using the residuals, then taking the trend
out.
I'm surprised it makes such a difference - especially with the trend approach. The
residuals look fine.
Dave has to look at the individual eruptions. There is quite a lot of inter-eruption
variability.
Cheers
Phil
At 16:57 13/12/2007, John Kennedy wrote:

Dear Dave and Phil,
In answer to Phil's question concerning other jumps in the mix, I think
this is the only jump that can be identified based on the country
metadata, where we can also be fairly sure there was a step change in
the measurement method. The drop in US obs in the 1960s occurs when many
more countries are contributing to the mix and so we're still not sure
how this change maps onto measurement method, which is what really
causes the biases.
I had some difficulty understanding how Figure 3 was created - is the
diagram just a straight average of the anomalies before and after the
January of each volcano? Or has there been some zeroing?
I'd be interested in seeing the individual volcanoes that go into the
composite. Dave, if you have no objections to sending me the raw and
residual time series, I can experiment with these things myself.
As for the journal, I agree with Phil. David Parker also suggested BAMS,
based on its having a wider readership, but JGR or J Clim sound fine to
me.
Best regards,
John
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:31 +1100, David Thompson wrote:
> Dear Phil and John,
>
>
> Please find attached some draft text for the results section of the
> paper.
>
>
> At this stage, I want to make sure everyone is comfortable with the
> main results section. I will send the other sections in a future
> email.
>
>
> Hopefully the text is straightforward to follow even though you don't
> have a copy of the analysis details (and the figure captions are still
> under construction). Please don't worry about editing - I'm mainly
> interested in getting your general impressions.
>
>
> (Phil: I've already iterated with John on the 'dip in 45' text; but
> I'm curious to know what you think.)
>
>
> One general question: I am planning on submitting the paper to J
> Climate. Does this seem appropriate to both of you? I don't want the
> 'dip in 45' text to be buried in a long paper, so I've been toying
> with other venues... if you have any thoughts on the best journal,
> please let me know. It will impact how the final writing evolves.
>
>
> I will be on travel next week, then the holidays will be upon us. So
> no rush. I'll be back working on the paper shortly after the New Year.
> And my hope is to submit the paper in January.
>
>
> Thanks again ...
> Dave
>
--
John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB
Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
E-mail: [5]john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk [6]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [7]http://www.hadobs.org